THIRD DIVISION documents denominated as Escritura de Compra Venta which were executed in 1939

would have well quali ed as ancient documents since they were already in existence for
[G.R. No. 111027. February 3, 1999.] more than thirty years in 1976 when the case for reconveyance was initially led. The
original documents, however, were not presented in evidence as these had been apparently
lost in the re that gutted the o ce of petitioners' counsel. Under the circumstances, it
BERNARDINO RAMOS and ROSALIA OLI , petitioners, vs . COURT OF
should have been the duty of petitioners therefore to prove the existence of the
APPEALS, RODOLFO BAUTISTA and FELISA LOPEZ , respondents.
documents in accordance with Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. It appears that the
loss of the two documents of sale was shown by testimonial evidence of petitioners'
Jose de Luna for petitioners. counsel, Atty. MacPaul B. Soriano, whose law o ce was burned. Upon realizing that the
documents involved here had been irretrievably lost because of the re, Atty. Soriano
Jose T. Antonio for private respondents. suggested to petitioners that they should see their other lawyer, Atty. Laggui, who could
provide them with certi ed true copies thereof. This certi cation, however, does not imply
SYNOPSIS that the documents certi ed to were authentic writings although it proves the existence of
the documents purportedly evidencing the sale. Rule 132 provides the manner by which
On January 9, 1940, Lucia Bautista, predecessor of private respondents, in the the due execution and authenticity of private writings like the deeds involved here, should
cadastral proceedings involving lots 572 and 579 of the Gattaran Cadastre, was issued be established. Unfortunately for petitioners, the documents upon which they relied in
OCT Nos. 17811 and 17812. Thirty-six (36) years later, or on January 8, 1976, petitioners, establishing their claim of ownership, had not been duly presented in evidence in
as buyers of the subject lots, led an action for reconveyance with damages against accordance with the aforecited Rule. They failed to present any person who could have
respondents spouses. They alleged that they bought the lots from Pedro Tolentino, witnessed the execution of the documents, like the instrumental witnesses thereof.
claimants of the lots evidenced by two "Escritura de Compra Venta." Petitioners presented Understandably, they could not even demonstrate the genuineness of the signatures of the
certi ed copies thereof claiming that the originals were lost in a re that gutted the o ce parties to the sale because the copies they offered in evidence did not bear those
of their counsel. They failed to present any person who could have witnessed the execution signatures. Consequently, under the Rules of Court, the documents' authenticity and due
of the documents and likewise failed to prove that those documents were later registered. execution are suspect and may not be given that much weight.
The trial court dismissed the complaint. It found that petitioner Bernardino Ramos failed to 2. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; RELATIVITY OF CONTRACTS;
file an answer in the cadastral proceedings and also failed to avail of any petition to reopen PRIVATE DOCUMENTS BIND ONLY IMMEDIATE PARTIES. — Assuming arguendo that the
proceedings, hence, laches had set in. It ruled that a title becomes indefeasible and existence of the documents was properly established, still, the supposed agreement
incontrovertible after the expiration of one year from entry of the nal decree of embodied in the two documents bound only the parties thereto, namely Pedro Tolentino
registration; and that reconveyance may only take place if the land that is claimed to be and the petitioners, because the latter failed to prove that these were later registered as to
wrongfully registered is still registered in the name of the person who procured the operate against the whole world. They could not have bound third persons like Lucia
wrongful registration. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals. ECcTaS
Bautista because of the basic civil law principle of relativity of contracts which provides
Unregistered documents bind only the parties thereto and cannot operate against that contracts can only bind the parties who had entered into it, and it cannot favor or
the whole world because of the basic civil law principle of relativity of contracts which prejudice a third person. This basic principle applies even if the sales were supposedly
provides that contracts can only bind the parties who had entered into it, and it cannot concluded at a time prior to the operation of the Torrens system of land registration over
favor or prejudice a third person. Thus, failure to register the "Escritura De Compra Venta" the properties involved.
resulted in the sale binding between the vendee and the vendor alone and cannot bind their 3. ID.; LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; CADASTRAL ACT; ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES OF
successors-in-interest. TITLE ISSUED THEREUNDER SHALL HAVE SAME EFFECT AS CERTIFICATES ISSUED
An action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud prescribes in four UNDER LAND REGISTRATION ACT. — Under the Cadastral Act, the original certi cates of
(4) years from discovery of the fraud. The period is counted from date of issuance of the title issued to the original registrant, shall have the same effect as certi cates of title
original certi cate of title which the law considers "constructive notice to all persons." An granted on application for registration of land under the Land Registration Act, because
action based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years. Failure to avail "no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired
of any of the remedies within the prescribed periods foreclosed their claims. by prescription or adverse possession." Pedro Tolentino and petitioners, as the former's
alleged successors-in-interest, have therefore no valid claim of ownership over the
Inattention to titled property does not constitute abandonment for holders of the property, particularly since petitioners simply failed to substantiate the nature and extent
title have in their favor the protection of the law. HSCcTD of Tolentino's rights and interests over the lots. Such being the case, the conveyances in
their favor were void as the subject properties were lawfully owned by another person.
SYLLABUS 4. ID.; ID.; LAND REGISTRATION ACT; ONE YEAR PERIOD FROM ENTRY OF
DECREE TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW. — Section 38 of the Land Registration Act
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ESCRITURA DE COMPRA VENTA , AN ANCIENT provides that a decree of registration duly issued is subject "to the right of any person
DOCUMENT; EXISTENCE THEREOF NOT DULY PROVED IN CASE AT BAR. — The two deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 fraud to le in the competent Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) a acting in their behalf, to refrain from molesting or disturbing the possession and
petition for review within one year after entry of the decree, provided no innocent ownership of the defendants of the land described in paragraph 2 of the
purchaser for value has acquired an interest." The same law provides that upon the complaint, designated as Lot 572 and Lot 579 Gattaran Cadastre, Gattaran,
expiration of the term of one year, "every decree or certi cate of title . . . shall be Cagayan, covered by Original Certi cate of Titles Nos. 17811 and 17812 which
imprescriptible." was (sic) cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Titles Nos. T-31699 and T-31698.

5. ID.; PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS; ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE RESULTING No pronouncement as to costs and damages.
FROM FRAUD PRESCRIBES IN FOUR (4) YEARS. — Under the law, an action for SO ORDERED."
reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud prescribes in four (4) years from the
discovery of the fraud. Discovery of the fraud must be deemed to have taken place when as well as the resolution of July 1, 1993, denying reconsideration thereof.
Lucia Bautista was issued OCT Nos. 17811 and 17812 because registration of real
property is considered a "constructive notice to all persons" and it shall be counted "from The records disclose the following antecedent facts:
the time of such registering, ling or entering." An action based on implied or constructive On March 14, 1939, Pedro Tolentino, claiming absolute ownership over Lot Nos. 572
trust prescribes in ten (10) years. This means that petitioners should have enforced the and 579 of the Gattaran cadastre in Lapogan, Gattaran, Cagayan, separately sold said lots
trust within ten (10) years from the time of its creation or upon the alleged fraudulent to petitioners, the spouses Bernardino Ramos and Rosalia Oli, in consideration of the
registration of the property. But as it is, petitioners failed to avail of any of the amount of eighty pesos (P80.00) for each sale. The aforesaid conveyances were allegedly
aforementioned remedies within the prescribed periods. With no remedy in view, their evidenced by two documents both entitled "Escritura de Compra Venta" 3 and
claims should forever be foreclosed. IaTSED
acknowledged before a notary public.
6. ID.; LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION; Subsequently, however, petitioners instituted on January 8, 1976 an action for
HOLDERS OF TITLE, PROTECTED. — Private respondents have in their favor the law that reconveyance with damages 4 alleging that while they were "in open, public, adverse,
protects holders of title under the Torrens System of land registration. As this Court so peaceful and continuous possession" of the subject lots "in good faith and with just title,
eloquently pronounced in 1915: "Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, for not less than fty (50) years, personally and through their predecessors-in-interest,"
without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the 'mirador de su they were surprised to discover in November 1975, that decrees of registration 5 covering
casa,' to avoid the possibility of losing his land. TAacIE
Lot Nos. 572 and 579 were already issued on January 7, 1940. They complained further
the subsequent issuance by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan on March 11, 1941, Original
Certi cates of Title Nos. 17811 and 17812 covering Lot Nos. 572 and 579, respectively, in
DECISION favor of Lucia Bautista since the latter allegedly neither laid claim of ownership nor took
possession of them, either personally or through another. Petitioners claimed instead that
they were the ones who acquired prior ownership and possession over the lots to the
ROMERO , J : p exclusion of the whole world. Thus, they concluded that the original certi cates of title as
well as Transfer Certi cates of Title Nos. T-31698 and T-31699 obtained by private
May the heir of the original registrant of parcels of land under the Torrens System, respondent Rodolfo Bautista who adjudicated unto himself said lots on September 20,
be deprived of ownership by alleged claimants thereof through acquisitive prescription? aisadc
1975, as sole heir of Lucia Bautista 6 were null and void. On the theory that they already
Impugned in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision 1 of the Court of acquired the subject lots by acquisitive prescription, petitioners demanded their return but
Appeals which a rmed in toto that of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch private respondents refused to do so, hence, compelling them to le a complaint for
VIII, 2 disposing of Civil Case No. VIII-7, an action for reconveyance with damages, as reconveyance with damages.
follows: On the other hand, herein private respondents, the spouses Rodolfo Bautista and
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as Felisa Lopez, likewise claimed absolute ownership of the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-
follows: 31698 and T-31699. They alleged that while the records of the Bureau of Lands showed
that during the cadastral survey in Gattaran in 1932, Pedro Tolentino was a claimant over
1. Ordering the dismissal of the instant case; lands in the cadastre, the same was only with respect to Lot No. 1399 which was
eventually titled under his name as OCT No. 16110. It just happened that Lot No. 1399 was
2. The defendants are hereby declared absolute owners of the land
adjacent to Lot No. 572, a portion of which was occupied by petitioners upon the tolerance
described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, Lot No. 572 and Lot No. 579 Gattaran
Cadastre, Gattaran, Cagayan;
of the original registrant Lucia Bautista.

3. The a davit of Self-Adjudication (Exhibit '6') and Transfer By way of a rmative defense, private respondents maintained that the action for
Certi cate of Titles Nos. T-31699 and T-31698 (Exhibit '7' & '8') are hereby reconveyance led by petitioners was tantamount to a reopening of the cadastral
declared valid; and proceedings or a collateral attack on the decrees of registration which cannot be done
without violating the rule on conclusiveness of the decree of registration. Moreover, they
4. Ordering the heirs of the late Bernardino Ramos and other persons argued that since the lots were already under the operation of the Torrens System,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 acquisitive prescription would no longer be possible. PETITIONERS HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.

After due proceedings, the trial court dismissed petitioners' complaint underscoring 3. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONFORMING WITH THE TRIAL
the fact that during the cadastral proceedings in 1940, Bernardino Ramos did not le an COURT'S DECISION THAT RECONVEYANCE WILL NO LONGER PROSPER IF THE LANDS IN SUIT
answer for the two lots although he was allegedly the claimant and possessor thereof HAD ALREADY BEEN TRANSFERRED TO A THIRD PERSON IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE
under the deeds of sale executed by Pedro Tolentino in his favor on March 14, 1939. Since WHEN THE FACTS SHOW THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAD ADMITTED THEY ALLEGEDLY
it was only Lucia Bautista who led an answer and who appeared to be the lawful claimant INHERITED THE LANDS IN SUIT AND THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT THIRD PARTIES.
in the proceedings, she was therefore issued original certi cates of title for the subject We sustain the appellate court's decision.
lots. The trial court presumed that everyone was noti ed about the proceedings inasmuch
as cadastral proceedings are in rem. More notably, within one year from the issuance of Inasmuch as petitioners anchor their claim of ownership over the parcels of land on
the decree of registration on January 9, 1940, Bernardino Ramos likewise failed to avail of the alleged deeds of sale executed by Pedro Tolentino in their favor, we believe that the
a petition to reopen the proceedings on the ground of fraud as he subsequently alleged in issue of the authenticity and binding effect of those documents should be addressed at
his belated action for reconveyance. Consequently, when the action for reconveyance was the outset. LLjur

nally led, more than thirty-six (36) years had already elapsed and laches had set in. The
trial court ruled in this wise: The two documents denominated as Escritura de Compra Venta which were
executed in 1939 would have well quali ed as ancient documents 7 since they were
"The settled rule on the indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of the title already in existence for more than thirty years in 1976 when the case for reconveyance
after the expiration of one year from the entry of the nal decree of registration, was initially led. The original documents, however, were not presented in evidence as
now bars the plaintiffs from availing this action for reconveyance; the property in these had been apparently lost in the re that gutted the o ce of petitioners' counsel.
question not having been satisfactorily shown that same was wrongfully titled to Under the circumstances, it should have been the duty of petitioners therefore to prove the
in the name of Lucia Bautista. Accordingly, her titles thereto, Exhibit '4' and Exhibit existence of the documents in accordance with Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
'5', are therefore valid. By operation of law Transfer Certi cate of Title Nos. 31699 which states:
and 31698 in the name of Rodolfo Bautista (Exhibit '7' & '8') are also valid. The
defendant Rodolfo Bautista is a possessor with a Torrens title who is not aware "SECTION 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the
of any aw of his title which invalidates it, is considered possessor in good faith original document has been lost or destroyed, or can not be produced in court, the
and his possession does not lose this character except in the case and from the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability
moment by nal judgment of the Court (sic). Diaz vs. Rodriguez, L-20300-01 and without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, L-20355-56, April 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 704. its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
order stated."
In the same vein, it is a settled rule that a party seeking the reconveyance
to him of his land that he claims had been wrongfully registered in the name of It appears that the loss of the two documents of sale was shown by testimonial
another person, must recognize the validity of the certi cate of title of the latter. It evidence of petitioners' counsel, Atty. MacPaul B. Soriano, whose law o ce was burned.
is also a settled rule that a reconveyance may only take place if the land that is Upon realizing that the documents involved here had been irretrievably lost because of the
claimed to be wrongfully registered is still registered in the name of the person re, Atty. Soriano suggested to petitioners that they should see their other lawyer, Atty.
who procured the wrongful registration. No action for reconveyance can take Laggui, who could provide them with certi ed true copies thereof. 8 Thus, the copies of the
place as against a third party who acquired title over the registered property in documents that petitioners presented in court each contained the following certification:
good faith and for value. Defendant Rodolfo Bautista ttingly steps into the
shoes of an innocent third person." [Underscoring supplied]. "CERTIFICATION

Dissatis ed with the trial court's disposition of the case, petitioners seasonably I, ANTONIO N. LAGGUI, Notary Public for and in the Province of Cagayan,
appealed the same to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, found the hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct and literal copy of the original
conclusions reached by the trial court in accord with law and the evidence presented, copy of Doc. No. 1, Page No. 44, Book No. 1, Series of 1939 of the Notarial
hence, it a rmed the same in toto on October 23, 1992. Having been denied Register Luis Rosacia, shown to me by, and in possession of Bernardino Ramos."
reconsideration, petitioners interposed the instant petition for review on certiorari alleging
This certi cation, however, does not imply that the documents certi ed to were
the following as grounds therefor:
authentic writings although it proves the existence of the documents purportedly
1. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF evidencing the sale. Rule 132 provides the manner by which the due execution and
DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH FOUND BY authenticity of private writings like the deeds involved here, should be established. Thus:
MERE PRESUMPTION THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN
SUIT WHEN THE FACTS ADDUCED DURING THE TRIAL CLEARLY PROVED THAT PETITIONERS
"SECTION 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
HAVE BEEN IN POSSESSION THEREOF FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS.
authenticity must be proved either:
2. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
1. By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or;
DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE INSTANT ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE INSTITUTED BY
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 2. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of evidencing the alleged mortgages do not, however, conform to the formal and substantive
the maker; requirements therefor. One such document 1 0 dated May 24, 1987 and handwritten in the
English language described the property allegedly mortgaged to a certain Santos
Any other private document need only be identi ed as that which it is
Tolentino as "a certain parcel of land estimated at one hectare." The other alleged
claimed to be."
mortgage instrument dated August 12, 1985, 1 1 likewise handwritten but in the Ilocano
Unfortunately for petitioners, the documents upon which they relied in establishing dialect, did not su ciently describe the subject property of the mortgage. There is indeed
their claim of ownership, had not been duly presented in evidence in accordance with the no way that we can ever determine if the lands referred to in the mortgage were the lots
aforecited Rule. They failed to present any person who could have witnessed the execution now in controversy. At any rate, while petitioners' daughter, Erlinda Ramos, testi ed that
of the documents, like the instrumental witnesses thereof. Understandably, they could not the properties in controversy were the ones she and her sisters mortgaged, that claim is
even demonstrate the genuineness of the signatures of the parties to the sale because the now self-serving since they are presently the claimants of the lands. 1 2 Interestingly,
copies they offered in evidence did not bear those signatures. Consequently, under the Erlinda herself admitted that her father never declared the lots for taxation purposes and
Rules of Court, the documents' authenticity and due execution are suspect and may not be neither did they ever pay real property taxes thereon. In short, the alleged mortgage papers
given that much weight. could very well refer to properties other than Lot Nos. 572 and 579 and that the trial court
correctly ruled that what petitioners proved can not ripen into ownership "in derogation to
Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the existence of the documents was properly that of the registered owner." 1 3
established, still, the supposed agreement embodied in the two documents bound only the
parties thereto, namely Pedro Tolentino and the petitioners, because the latter failed to Petitioners' supposed possession of the lots for more than forty (40) years,
prove that these were later registered as to operate against the whole world. They could therefore, stands as a bare claim with nothing whatsoever to prop it up. Under the
not have bound third persons like Lucia Bautista because of the basic civil law principle of circumstances of the case, they would only succeed upon su cient evidence to support
relativity of contracts which provides that contracts can only bind the parties who had their allegation that fraud attended the registration of the property in Lucia Bautista's
entered into it, and it cannot favor or prejudice a third person. 9 This basic principle applies name. As it is, however, petitioners failed to present evidence on the matter thereby leaving
even if the sales were supposedly concluded at a time prior to the operation of the Torrens their claim barren. LexLib

system of land registration over the properties involved. When the properties were
In contrast, private respondent Rodolfo Bautista's claim to the properties registered
eventually titled in favor of Lucia Bautista, the sale between Pedro Tolentino and
under the Torrens system which he traces to his aunt, Lucia Bautista, appears
petitioners could not have affected Lucia Bautista and her successor-in-interest because
incontrovertible. Under the Cadastral Act, the original certi cates of title issued to the
the pertinent law in point, Act No. 496, as amended by P.D. No. 1529 unequivocably
original registrant, shall have the same effect as certi cates of title granted on application
provides:
for registration of land under the Land Registration Act, because "no title to registered land
"SECTION 50. . . . But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
instrument except a will, purporting to convey or affect registered land, shall take possession." 1 4 Pedro Tolentino and petitioners, as the former's alleged successors-in-
effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract interest, have therefore no valid claim of ownership over the property, particularly since
between the parties and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register of deeds petitioners simply failed to substantiate the nature and extent of Tolentino's rights and
to make registration. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey interests over the lots. Such being the case, the conveyances in their favor were void as the
and affect the land, and in all cases under this Act the registration shall be made subject properties were lawfully owned by another person. 1 5
in the office of the register of deeds for the province or provinces or city, where the
land lies. [Underscoring supplied]. Neither may petitioners' argument that private respondent Rodolfo Bautista, being
the son-in-law of Pedro Tolentino, was bound by the sale and therefore he and his present
SECTION 51. Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, wife hold the properties in trust for petitioners' successors-in-interest hold. On that basis,
order, decree, instrument, or entry affecting registered land which would under they aver that their right to claim the property in trust is imprescriptible.
existing laws, if recorded, led, or entered in the o ce of the register of deeds,
affect the real estate to which it relates shall, if registered, led, or entered in the But petitioners' argument would only be tenable upon proof that the property was
o ce of the register of deeds in the province or city where the real estate to which acquired through mistake or fraud. As earlier observed, however, petitioners' claim of fraud
such instrument relates lies, be notice to all person from the time of such was never substantiated and, hence, it has remained a groundless charge. Consequently,
registering, filing, or entering." petitioner's claim of imprescriptibility of the action for reconveyance is baseless.
Hence, petitioners' failure to register the Escritura de Compra Venta resulted in the sale Section 38 of the Land Registration Act provides that a decree of registration duly
being binding only between them and the vendor, Pedro Tolentino. Lucia Bautista and issued is subject "to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest
her successors-in-interest, being third parties to the sale, could not have been bound therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to le in the competent Court of First
thereby. Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) a petition for review within one year after entry of
To give a semblance of ownership over the properties, petitioners introduced in the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest." The same
evidence documents showing that their successors-in-interest mortgaged the properties. law provides that upon the expiration of the term of one year, "every decree or certificate of
While only owners of properties have the right to mortgage the same, the papers title . . . shall be imprescriptible."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Under the law, an action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud 7. Sec. 21, Rule 132, Rules of Court; Dablo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93365, September
prescribes in four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. 1 6 Discovery of the fraud must 21, 1993, 226 SCRA 619, 627.
be deemed to have taken place when Lucia Bautista was issued OCT Nos. 178111 and
8. TSN, February 2, 1989, p. 9.
17812 because registration of real property is considered a "constructive notice to all
persons" and it shall be counted "from the time of such registering, ling or entering." 17 An 9. Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 1097, 1113 (1996).
action based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years. This means that
petitioners should have enforced the trust within ten (10) years from the time of its 10. Exh. C or 2.
creation 18 or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property. But as it is, 11. Exh. D.
petitioners failed to avail of any of the aforementioned remedies within the prescribed
periods. With no remedy in view, their claims should forever be foreclosed. 12. Record, pp. 54-58.

The Court, however, subscribes to petitioners' argument that the courts a quo 13. RTC Decision, p. 24.
incorrectly held that private respondents are third persons to whom ownership of the
14. Sec. 46, Act No. 496 now Sec. 47 of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529);
properties had been transmitted. But this error alone may not save the day for petitioners. Umbay v. Alecha, 220 Phil. 103, 106 (1985).
They have, in a sense, slept on whatever rights they claimed to have over the properties
and by the time they were roused, the law had stepped in to bar their claims. On the other 15. Sagrado Labrador v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 83843-44, April 5, 1990, 184 SCRA 171,
hand, private respondents' inattention to the property from the time of Lucia Bautista's 175.
death until private respondent Rodolfo Bautista's retirement from the military should not
16. Guerrero v. Court of Appeals, 211 Phil. 295, 305 (1983).
be construed as an abandonment thereof. Private respondents have in their favor the law
that protects holders of title under the Torrens System of land registration. As this Court 17. Sec. 51 of Act No. 496 as amended by Sec. 52 of P.D. No. 1529.
so eloquently pronounced in 1915:
18. Guerrero v. Court of Appeals, supra.
"Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity
of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the 'mirador de su casa,' to avoid 19. Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590, 593 (1915), cited in Umbay v. Alecha, supra, at p. 106.
the possibility of losing his land." 1 9

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack
of merit. The decision and the resolution appealed from in CA-G.R. CV No. 30033 dated
October 23, 1992 and July 1, 1993, respectively, are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Panganiban, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Segundino G. Chua; Cui and Rasul, JJ, concurring.

2. Presided by Judge Felipe R. Tumacder.

4. The case was previously docketed as Civil Case No. II-226 but was later re-docketed as
Civil Case No. VIII-7.
5. Decree No. 736002 for Lot No. 572 and Decree No. 736003 for Lot No. 579.

6. Private respondents showed that Lucia Bautista died during the Second World War
without issue. Her brother, Felimon Bautista, private respondent Rodolfo Bautista's
father, survived her. Rodolfo was previously married to Lucena Tolentino, a daughter of
Pedro Tolentino, who died less than a year after their marriage. Private respondent Felisa
Lopez is Rodolfo's second wife.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com